Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"

1000 replies

miri1985 · 18/06/2022 17:50

www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/18/the-book-that-tore-publishing-apart-harm-has-been-done-and-now-everyones-afraid

Interesting article but Sarah Ditum said it on twitter better than I could "I think it's a major flaw that this article broadly assumes good faith on the part of cancel-culture agitators. A lot of them are perfectly self-interested and borderline sociopathic" twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1538144622643494912?cxt=HHwWgIC-3dCYy9gqAAAA

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Maëlys · 22/06/2022 10:29

i haven’t read the full thread so apologies if this has already been posted/mentioned but Kate Clanchy herself has said it’s untrue that she attempted to dox the good reads reviewer.

she said the reviewer was anonymous and so she had no way to contact the woman’s employers.

im just saying this because a huge part of the anger towards Clanchy seems to be over her alleged bullying of this reviewer. It seems to be accepted as fact that Clanchy knew her identity and harassed her in the real world.

it was very wrong for Clanchy to lie about the content of the review but it seems that she didn’t commit any real world harm to the reviewer, contrary to the accepted narrative.

As I said, apologies if this has already been brought up - I’m sure it has! I was just surprised to see this tweet from Clanchy explicitly denying that she ever knew the reviewer’s identity, so thought I’d mention it in case it hadn’t come up before.

Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"
Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"
Hagiography · 22/06/2022 10:37

Are there copies of what the original quotes were and the subsequent ones?

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 10:39

I'm not a 'Clanchy defender' and I do object to having my views mischaracterised in the ways some on this thread are doing.

I'm not sure what's odd or illogical about my defence of literary freedoms and freedom of speech.

I've agreed that KC behaved badly and foolishly in reacting to the review. I've also agreed that some of the writing quoted sounds at least a bit cringe (I've not read the book). These seem to be the two main points that are being repeated by the anti-KC commenters.

I strongly disagree that writers should be censored or censured for what they write in their books. I believe you have the right to not read her words. You also have the right to write scathing reviews of her words (and, again, KC was wrong to respond to the reviewer in any way).

To those of you who think the above opinions are odd, illogical, wrong, abusive etc, please tell me what would be a better response to the situation? I've asked several times what should be done about KC and her book. Ban it, cancel her? Take her to court? Have her stripped and flogged in the street? Pulp the book, put an 'OFFENSIVE' sticker on it? I would like to know what you think would be a fair and proportionate response to her writing some debateably-not-very-good descriptions and having a childish strop about a bad review?

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 10:40

I had a look at goodreads, which seems to be mostly 'I heard' reviews, a massive outpouring of gossip, effectively. It's astonishing how hard it is to find the original quotes/reviews anywhere - this argument has bloomed and multiplied and morphed endlessly.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn · 22/06/2022 10:41

it was very wrong for Clanchy to lie about the content of the review

She's saying there in that Tweet that she didn't lie about it, that the reviewer changed the review.

It would be absolutely bonkers if, under her real name, she lied and then doubled down like that, so presumably she's telling the truth and the anonymous reviewer did edit it retroactively. But there are people all through this thread insisting she lied! WTF is happening here? It's really nasty.

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 10:42

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 10:20

Today I am thinking of 'near enemies'.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/07/change-your-life-near-enemies-buddhism

Obviously not talking about people here; I'm talking about ideas.

That is a very interesting concept!

achillestoes · 22/06/2022 10:45

‘She's saying there in that Tweet that she didn't lie about it, that the reviewer changed the review.’

I wonder if one day we’ll find out the identity of the mysterious reviewer who only knows Monisha Rajesh.

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 10:46

unherd.com/2021/09/the-problem-with-white-saviours/

'the Kafka Trap has severe implications for anyone who believes there is an important distinction to be made between clumsy writing and racial prejudice. Between imperfect women (and remember, no person can be perfect) and people complicit with racism. And between those of us who believe in tolerance and those whose minds have been degraded by a politics that speaks the language of compassion but is in practice vindictive.'

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 10:47

It would be absolutely bonkers if, under her real name, she lied and then doubled down like that, so presumably she's telling the truth and the anonymous reviewer did edit it retroactively. But there are people all through this thread insisting she lied! WTF is happening here? It's really nasty.

I think it's highly likely that KC is telling the truth. I think she was wrong to respond to the review at all, but I can understand it if the review made up actual lies about what was said in the book. I still think she should have left it alone, either way.

I'm also glad to hear it's untrue that KC went after the reviewer and tried to contact her employer etc. I did think that sounded very unlikely.

Also might be worth considering that the culture of Goodreads has been a big problem for over a decade: www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-goodreads-bullies_b_1689661

Innocenta · 22/06/2022 10:52

Floisme · 22/06/2022 10:17

I'm also noticing - and not for the first time - how some (not all) of Clanchy's defenders cannot seem to resist making personal remarks. Not cool.

And now I must go and do some work too.

There have been some extremely unpleasant personal remarks made to those whom you would characterise as "defenders". Note a deletion by MNHQ.

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 10:57

Okay, I think I've found the original Goodreads review. From a user called 'Ceridwen' who says she/he is a teacher.

www.goodreads.com/review/show/3632935388?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1

I think Clanchy's responses have been deleted. So we have half of the evidence.

achillestoes · 22/06/2022 11:04

It’s a fairly excoriating review, and a lot of the criticism is reasonable (in my view).

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 11:06

Sure, what I can't find is Clanchy's response, though, which seems to be what attracted as much if not more opprobrium than the book itself.

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 11:07

That "review" is just a hatchet job. Seriously nasty. KC should have known better than to engage with that. But she was grieving her parents at the time, maybe it felt cathartic to respond in anger.

There's some response to KC's comments in the comments. E.g. she's quoting as saying she didn't write that a character had a "Jewish nose" and the reviewer is saying she did write that because "Ashkenazi" means "Jewish". So... Looks like the reviewer lied about the text at least once.

achillestoes · 22/06/2022 11:09

She shouldn’t have engaged, but the criticisms aren’t ‘nasty’. Talking about a child’s ‘rotting, nineteenth century mouth’ is something I think a person should be allowed to do in print, but it’s not something I’m going to defend.

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 11:12

I read one comment that asked what Clanchy is supposed to do in response to the criticisms. His response was 'not have written the book', (to paraphrase).

Which is an interesting thought experiment. But not, of course, possible.

I'm wondering if writing a book is far more these days than actually 'writing a book'. It could become a performance of setting out one's stall on the internet, alternately self flagellating and ceremonially burning one's own author copies while murmuring repentance, livestreaming the whole thing onto youtube and then inviting readers to come and write their response slogans on your flesh in the manner of a Marina Abramovic performance from the 70s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_0

achillestoes · 22/06/2022 11:13

‘I'm wondering if writing a book is far more these days than actually 'writing a book'. It could become a performance of setting out one's stall on the internet, alternately self flagellating and ceremonially burning one's own author copies while murmuring repentance, livestreaming the whole thing onto youtube and then inviting readers to come and write their response slogans on your flesh in the manner of a Marina Abramovic performance from the 70s.’

😂

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 11:18

I haven't read the book and I don't trust the reviewer to not have taken the quotes out of context. She was clearly pushing a particular story about KC then selecting from the book to support that story. Again, as previously discussed in this thread, it's okay to describe people and characters in books. I thought the "rotting, nineteenth-century mouth" was a brilliant image.

You are right though, that "nasty" is maybe overstating it. I was seeing it from the pov of the author reading that about her book/herself. It's quite a personal attack - it is focused on KC's race and class, and what a horrible person KC must be to have written this. I do think it was a terrible lapse in judgement for KC to have responded to this.

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 11:20

I'm wondering if writing a book is far more these days than actually 'writing a book'. It could become a performance of setting out one's stall on the internet, alternately self flagellating and ceremonially burning one's own author copies while murmuring repentance, livestreaming the whole thing onto youtube and then inviting readers to come and write their response slogans on your flesh in the manner of a Marina Abramovic performance from the 70s.

This is an excellent description of literary twitter.

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 11:26

I read one comment that asked what Clanchy is supposed to do in response to the criticisms. His response was 'not have written the book', (to paraphrase).

Of course. That's it. That's why no one can answer my question about what should be done, because the answer is that the book should never have been written in the first place. Now that it has been written, there is nothing to do about it. All we can do, to prove ourselves to be good people, is to continuously berate and punish the author and state over and over again everything that is wrong and immoral about the book and author. And extend that censure to anyone who doesn't seem to be following the line, so that no one can mistake us for the wrong sort of human.

It's all of a piece with the general trends of wanting to abolish history and get rid of the past. If we could put 'Some Kids' in the memory hole, that would be ideal. If we can just wipe out everything, everything that doesn't fit the best new ideas, then we'll be perfect, and live forever.

BasicBiscuit · 22/06/2022 11:29

There’s lots of discussion here about whether some of what Clanchy describes is predatory at worst or ill-judged at best.

There are always things to learn, or reflect upon, and I don’t disagree that Clanchy responded very poorly to that initial Good Reads review, and how it challenged some of her positions and attitudes.

But, Some Kids... is not a textbook. It’s a memoir. And what her memoir was, was honest. And that’s what memoirs are for, surely? Some parts are pretty uncomfortable to read, yes. We want our teachers to be non-judgemental, compassionate, without bias. But the reality is that of course they are not. I think this idea that she’s somehow a bad teacher (or sexualising children, or writing thinly veiled pornography) is not grasping that Clanchy is depicting her responses; her self-examination of her responses; and then her actions. And it’s these second two that really matter.

I have taught in large inner-city comprehensives for twenty years, and I’ve taught many girls like Kristell in Clanchy’s book, often ones who have experienced some degree of abuse or neglect, who present themselves in sexually precocious ways. And because I am a human being doing a very complicated job, I’ll likely have lots of initial responses about this:

  • Annoyance (why is she making life difficult for herself, me, and her classmates by preening in the mirror, flashing her legs at the boys near her, and refusing to get on with the work?)

  • Concern (What’s going on here? This sexually precocious dress and behaviour is new – has something happened?

The way she’s presenting herself is going to attract predatory older males and she’s really vulnerable)

  • Aesthetic distaste (it’s such a horrible look on a young girl, she looked so much nicer before all this).

Some of these thoughts are classist and rooted in sexism. They are not desirable, or positive thoughts to have about a pupil. But they are there, because I am a flawed human. I am also experienced and I am trained to recognise that these are not desirable or positive, and can examine them and remind myself that most of these thoughts are not fair. Other teachers will have different thoughts maybe, ones that reflect their own particular set of biases and preconceptions, but none will honestly initially react with wholly positive feelings of concern and care.

But then, mostly, hopefully, we do the right thing by that child. We teach them well, we adjust our content, resources and delivery to try to reach them; depending on our relationship with them we may try to talk with them to see if we can support them with what’s bothering them; we go to their Head of Year and talk to them about our concerns; we email their form tutor to ask them if they can do a round robin to see if there are similar concerns from other teachers; we fill out a safeguarding report; we worry about them.

For Kristell, the composite girl in the book, whose description has discomfited many posters, Clanchy does much more than this. She nurtures her creatively, she provides her with a space to articulate and process her own trauma. This is from the book:

Now Kristell sits with Tia and writes about assault and rape and arm-slashing and helplessness. She was right to tell me that the boys’ attention was a form of hate; it was, and so was my attitude to her, so was the attitude of our entire society, the attitude that identifies the disruption as coming from the young girl, not the gazing man, that attributes power to such a powerless person.”

Clanchy does not seem to me to be a bad teacher, far from it. She seems reflective, proactive and transformative. She explicitly acknowledges that her own initial responses to Kristell were unfair, sexist, sexualising. She’s learning from that. And she’s doing something fantastic educationally and personally for that child as a result.

beastlyslumber · 22/06/2022 11:32

That's a fantastic comment, @BasicBiscuit. Thank you for setting all that out so clearly.

Hagiography · 22/06/2022 11:34

Yep. Thanks, Basicbiscuit.

achillestoes · 22/06/2022 11:38

That is a great comment. I still don’t like the description, but I don’t necessarily think KC was a bad teacher or is a bad person.

BasicBiscuit · 22/06/2022 11:38

Separate to the above, I find it quite extraordinarily lacking in nuance or insight that because there are (very valid) concerns and questions about some phrases and descriptions, some people are sneering about her literary abilities in general, and saying that she “wrote a bad book”.

No she she didn’t, that’s exactly the sort of thought-terminating black and white thinking that posters on this board frequently criticise some TRAs for.

She is a really good poet and novelist (and, I'd argue, memoirist). You don't have to agree with everything she writes, but to claim that she is talentless hack because of this is really bad-faith and reductive thinking.

(This article was published as a precursor to the memoir. It's really moving and beautiful. It's worth a read if you want a taste of what her writing is like: www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/14/very-quiet-foreign-girls-poetry-foyle-young-poets-kate-clanchy)

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread